Gavin Kistner wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:54 PM, John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> Are rdoc and ri going to be made usable anytime soon?
> What about rdoc do you not find usable currently?
> I've found a few bugs while working with it this week, but overall it
> seems quite usable to me.
The ruby181-11.exe version (I'm assuming that there is only one, dated
January 28) ri and rdoc are completely broken. I deleted, redownloaded,
reinstalled, etc., with no better results, and reported it here and via
email to pragmaticprogramer.com back on the 30th. If I install
ruby180-10.exe, they work; if I install ruby181-11, they don't. I no
longer remember all of what goes wrong, but at a guess, there's an
installation step that isn't being finished, or even executed.
To begin with, ri and rdoc are named "ri" and "rdoc", not "ri.rb" and
"rdoc.rb", which they need to be on Windows, so they don't even execute.
But even if I rename them, they're still broken; if I remember
rightly, ri seems to be missing its database, and rdoc has data-path
problems. ri.bat thinks Ruby's installed on drive T:.
Perfectly normal XP Pro system, all current patches, either version of
Ruby installed with all default options on drive C:.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"